In a secret and secure location, a set of computers holds the hundreds of thousands of files that document how companies and individuals from about 40 countries exploited the United Nations oil-for-food programme in league with Saddam Hussein.
Yet nearly two months after the $35-million UN-backed probe that collected all those documents exposed just how troubled the programme was, there has been no rush by the authorities in question to study the documents.
Prosecutors and investigators from just 11 countries have requested documents for prosecuting bodies since the probe’s final report was released on October 27, said Reid Morden, executive director of the inquiry led by former United States Federal Reserve chairperson Paul Volcker.
Last week the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, a Paris-based group of 30 free-market democracies, urged governments to do more to investigate evidence of kickbacks and corruption.
‘Not surprising’
Morden said he is not concerned at the pace so far.
”It’s not surprising that things are drifting in as opposed to an avalanche at day one.”
Some experts suspect there are governments that don’t want to investigate their own complicity, that treat bribery as the price of doing business abroad, or that simply have judicial machinery that grinds slowly.
Morden would not say which prosecutors have sought information, but an official close to the investigation said they are Australia, Britain, France, Germany, India, Italy, Jordan, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand and the US. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the names of the countries have not been released.
Some of the most active prosecutors are in the US, where 15 people have been charged; France, where judges are investigating 10 officials and business leaders; and Switzerland, where a criminal probe is focusing on at least four people.
Yet in others, like Russia, home to many of the companies that participated in the oil-for-food abuses, there appears to have been little movement.
”I don’t think it’s surprising that some of these governments may be less than assiduous in following up,” said James Dobbins, a former US assistant secretary of state now with the Rand Corporation.
”It probably depends in part on the exact facts of any given case, but I don’t think in most cases they’re going to prosecute it with a crusading zeal.”
Saddam
The oil-for-food programme, established in 1996 with Iraq’s economy crippled by sanctions, allowed Saddam to sell oil in exchange for humanitarian goods meant for his people.
But Volcker’s inquiry showed that Saddam sold oil to foreign countries in hopes of getting their support for lifting sanctions, and enriched himself by $1,8-billion through a kickback scheme. Companies and politicians essentially paid him for the right to do business, circumventing the UN programme.
Even the head of the programme, Benon Sevan, was accused of accepting about $147 000 in kickbacks, a charge he denies. Sevan is being investigated by the Manhattan district attorney’s office but has returned to his native Cyprus, which has no extradition treaty with the US.
In November, the Volcker committee’s mandate was extended to December 31 in order to preserve investigators’ access to the documents, and Morden said the team will ensure that they can get them well beyond that date.
Fearing the report may be ignored, some US lawmakers have shared information with foreign authorities and pressed them to take action.
Norm Coleman, the Minnesota Republican who chairs a permanent Senate subcommittee on investigations and has been a leading critic of both the UN and oil-for-food, has met several ambassadors of countries whose companies or government personnel were said to be involved.
Imvume
South African oil company Imvume Management has taken steps to institute legal proceedings against the UN oil-for-food committee, relating to accusations of kickbacks against Imvume and sister company Montego.
”Steps have already been taken to institute legal proceedings in New York against the IIC [independent inquiry committee] and an action claiming damages will be issued shortly,” a company statement said in November.
Imvume and Montego, owned by South African businessman Sandi Majali, are accused of paying kickbacks, called a ”surcharge”, to secure a contract for two million barrels of oil from Iraq.
A statement attributed to Majali and Imvume Management said Majali and Imvume had met two senior investigators from the committee on June 30 2005 for a five-hour interview.
”Majali specifically denied having paid any kickbacks to the Iraqi authorities at all. The investigators did not contest this,” the statement said.
The investigators refused to provide him or the company with any of the documents presented at the interview, but gave a firm and formal undertaking of confidentiality.
Shortly after the interview, the investigators gave journalists from the Mail & Guardian documents that had been withheld from Imvume and Majali and disclosed to the weekly newspaper much of what had been discussed at the interview, contrary to the undertaking of confidentiality, the statement continued.
Part of deal-making
But worldwide anti-corruption surveys show that paying bribes and kickbacks are generally seen as a necessary part of deal-making with foreign countries. Iraq was clearly one of them, said Charles Duelfer, a former US weapons inspector whose own report on Iraq’s weapons capabilities, released last year, also detailed much of the wrongdoing in oil-for-food.
”Certainly Iraq, even before oil-for-food and sanctions, conducted business by buying influence,” Duelfer said.
But anti-corruption advocates say that should be no excuse for the many reputable US and European companies named in Volcker’s report.
”It was absolutely everyone,” said Juanita Olaya, of Transparency International, a Berlin-based anti-corruption watchdog. ”It’s easy to fall into the commonplace of saying the Iraqi regime was terrible, but the whole cauldron of things there was terrible.
”There was of course a lot of secrecy, but how come 2 200 companies had to bear this and you never heard someone blowing the whistle out loud?”
Since Volcker’s report appeared, Volvo has acknowledged paying the regime, with chief executive Leif Johansson telling the Swedish news agency TT: ”This was the way to do business in Iraq.”
Siemens of Germany has denied wrongdoing, while German authorities are investigating a former employee of DaimlerChrysler AG over the sale of a vehicle to Iraq mentioned in the inquiry.
Politicians
Two leading politicians have faced public scrutiny for their involvement. India’s former foreign minister, Natwar Singh, was demoted after the allegations arose, and then resigned on Tuesday, still denying wrongdoing. France is investigating Jean-Bernard Merimee, its former UN ambassador.
”In the US, I have confidence that they will investigate and prosecute wherever it’s appropriate. I just hope other member governments do the same,” US ambassador John Bolton said.
Megawati Sukarnoputri, former president of Indonesia, and ultranationalist Russian politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky were among politicians named in the report. Both have denied wrongdoing and no investigation has been announced.
The government of Jordan, whose companies were prominent among alleged violators, said more than a month ago that it had begun an inquiry. But the most prominent Jordanian mentioned in the report, Fawaz Zureikat, said he hasn’t been contacted yet.
Zureikat, a Jordanian businessman, was accused of funnelling money from the oil-for-food programme to the wife of British parliamentarian George Galloway and a political organisation that Galloway established in 1998 to help a four-year-old Iraqi girl with leukaemia. Galloway insists he’s the innocent victim of a ”witch-hunt”.
Zureikat, who has denied any wrongdoing, offers a widely held claim that the oil-for-food investigation is a largely US-led campaign to discredit the UN.
”The US wants the UN to be disqualified as a responsible organisation in international affairs,” he said. — Sapa-AP